The execution of Gary Glitter

cheets64 said:
Snip.
Click to expand...

I believe people do care, and actually would feel a lot happier with the state of society and would be much more content knowing that these sorts of people were no longer a part of the equation.

With regards to having a prison 5 miles from my house, no I would not like one that close to me, but having said that, I did not suggest we need more, I am suggesting that we re-instate capital punishment which would actually aliviate the strain on prisons and could even possibly lead to the closure of some of them, due to a lack of inmates.
 
Jonny L said:
I am suggesting that we re-instate capital punishment which would actually aliviate the strain on prisons and could even possibly lead to the closure of some of them, due to a lack of inmates.
Click to expand...

Except very few people are suitable for capital punishment. just look at the ratio of prisoners to death sentences in America. Not all murderers are given death penalty. Death penalty has a huge cost due to the number of retrials and saftey measures. As well as it being barbaric and something a modern society shouldn't even think about.

As for living near prisons, most city centres have at least one prison and no one even gives it a second thought.
 
I guess you really have to ask yourself why people have committed these crimes?

Is it because of a natural, biological disposition to being 'evil'? That they are born to commit horrible acts? Is that their fault, that they were born more likely to commit crimes and be affected in certain ways that would lead to these things happening?

What because of environmental factors? Assuming people are not born with a disposition and are rather the sum of their experiences - is it their fault that they were the subject of those circumstances and events?

Do we deny a person the right to change and give back to society because they were affected in a certain way by their experiences or because they were born with the slider towards 'evil' (thus having no choice in the matter)?

Prison should be about rehabilitation. Making them see what they have done. Re-educating them and preparing them to be contributing members of society - however that may be. It should also be a period where they are removed and denied the basic freedoms which we today take for granted.

Many people who are against that idea bring up money, that it costs the taxpayer. At what point does money become more important than a life? When they make big mistake? And how much is enough? At what point does it become too expensive to help people? There are lot of words being thrown about "sickos", "scum" at the criminals. But I contend that those who are happy to deny a human being the chance to make amends are just as bad.

I think the biggest problem when you come across the pro-death penalty is the emotional factor. People approach the issue with emotions blaring. They don't approach it with a logical disconnection. Much like the baying mob.

There can be no justice so long as law is absolute. And similarly, there can be no justice so long as the law is being dictated by those who are emotionally compromised.
 
That was a really well made and thought provoking programme. The final scene, although expected just came out of the blue and was over in seconds and just left me sitting here with my mouth open.
 
My opinion is, a lifetime sentance of boredom and suffering in jail (which is not the way jails are at the minute) would be a better sentance than death. Death would be too quick or kind for twisted people. If jails weren't holiday camps, a lifetime imprisonment would be better.

Otherwise, I'd support the death penality, though its not really my place to say who lives or dies, and I certainly wouldn't like to be the one who pulls the lever on the hangman...
 
Jonny L said:
but also removing those individuals from society who have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of attrocious crimes.
Click to expand...

So Gary Glitter gets hung and 6 months later there is proof that he was setup by the parents of those young girls which he always claimed happened.
Yes he did have horrible pics on his PC but is that worth a death penalty?
 
Feek said:
That was a really well made and thought provoking programme. The final scene, although expected just came out of the blue and was over in seconds and just left me sitting here with my mouth open.
Click to expand...
Me too...

I'm assuming this was made by the same people who made the trial of Tony Blair - that was another interesting 'documentary', but this was much better.
 
Something about taking a life- any life- no matter what their crime, just seems... wrong, on some deep level, to me. But I don't feel the same sense of disconnection that a lot of people do- the lack of empathy that allows you to walk past a homeless person and not notice them, or not care or close your mind off to the suffering in the world. To be blind.

To take a life is the ultimate proof of your disconnection. To be part of the taking of a life is also proof of your disconnection.

It's shocking to see just how barbaric people in this supposedly "civilised" country are. Underneath their false exterior, they're like a pack of snarling dogs. All baying for blood.

The excuse of their barbarism, not that they're aware of it as it seems "normal" for them, is that it's human nature.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8354316.stm


"A teenager who kidnapped and raped a five-year-old boy, eight days after avoiding custody for another rape, has been detained for at least three years."

"He must serve a minimum of three years minus five days before being considered for parole."

"The boy was sentenced to three years and four months, but will be eligible for parole earlier because of time spent in custody."

Way to go UK.
He should have been tried as an adult not a child stupid UK stupis laws.
 
deuse said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8354316.stm


"A teenager who kidnapped and raped a five-year-old boy, eight days after avoiding custody for another rape, has been detained for at least three years."

"He must serve a minimum of three years minus five days before being considered for parole."

"The boy was sentenced to three years and four months, but will be eligible for parole earlier because of time spent in custody."

Way to go UK.
He should have been tried as an adult not a child stupid UK stupis laws.
Click to expand...

And the non-misrepresented version.

On Wednesday, the attacker, who cannot be named, was given an indeterminate sentence for protection of the public after committing a second attack.

He must serve a minimum of three years minus five days before being considered for parole.
Click to expand...

It's much less dramatic when you quote it in context, an indeterminate sentance means he has no release date, just a date before which he cannot even be considered for release. If he is not fit for release, he stays in prison.
 
"andy" said:
thats what is wrong about prison imo though. well in the cases of the worse crimes

i dont think murderers and serial rapists deserve a chance to be 'fixed' and im not to sure the general public do either

it hardly deters people from committing crime when they know that the worst that can happen is that they will be looked after and given another chance.
Click to expand...
Punishment is very rarely a deterrent. Criminals don't commit crimes because they don't fear the punishment, they commit crimes because they honestly believe they won't get caught.

The idea that the death penalty will make criminals think twice is erroneous for that reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom